It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blog: Common Atheist and Theist Mistakes in Argument

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Annee

The belief that there is no God is certainly a belief, though it isn't a religion.

I believe there is no God. I don't know it for a fact.

It's okay to make these concessions. The place to draw the line is in front of idiots who claim that atheism is a 'religion'.


I have beliefs. Lack of belief in a god is not one of them.

But, I'm not gonna explain again why lack of belief is not a belief.




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You don't have to. It's a semantic straw to which those who are insecure in their atheism often cling.

Besides, elucidating a meaningful difference between the statments 'I don't believe in God' and 'I believe there is no God' might not be very easy.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But it only revolves around the concept of God because the concept of God came along.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
we haven't even properly defined "supernatural" yet, so standing in judgement of its validity or lack thereof, is wasted time.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
case in point:

super implies hyper, more than normal. super size your drink. bigger, better, faster, smarter.

now there isn't a person in this thread that can't wrap their minds around the idea of bigger better faster smarter or the opposite position of normal or smaller less efficient less powerful slower not as smart.

apply these concepts to nature. they work in nature as well. there's not one shred of evidence that super or hyper natural, is not a condition of the universe because it's always conjoined at the hip to the constraints of the environment, the target goal and the timeline in which they occur. a fast plane from the 1900s is not as fast as a fast plane from the 2000s. one is a better version of the other, provided increased speed is the goal.

other conditions are involved as well -- what is its fuel consumption, does it even need fuel, is it operating on the laws of the universe or perhaps laws we are not yet aware of but that obviously exist at some level. and that's just taking into account a linear timeline in a 3 dimensional universe, in which things are made to improve as regards their 3d natural state over the course of time, as scientific knowledge increases. this is where evolutionary thought both rises to the occasion and then falls flat on its face - because its an effective strategy to discovery in one direction but is so linear, it doesn't think dimensionally (time is malleable not entirely linear). might help if they spent a bit of time teaching theoretical physics to biology students.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Supernatural is, in my opinion, a silly word.
Everything that happens, happens in nature whether we believe it or not.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

A mechanism that helps us survive at one point.
But it has way out lived it's usefulness.
In my opinion.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm quite fond of "what if".
Doesn't mean I believe there is any more proof of a higher power though.

It really boils down to a question of proof for me.
I see nothing that leads me to believe there is a god.
Sure, I have years of people around me telling me there is one.
But, nothing beyond that.
Sure, there are things that make me wonder.
I couldn't give you an honest count if I wanted to.
To use a quote from one of my many favorite books:
“I know nothing of God or the Devil. I have never seen a vision nor learned a secret that would damn or save my soul.”

And it should be noted.
That despite the fact that a number of my copatriots will gloss over this fact.
Particularly in arguments such as these.
Not all atheists are alike.
Exactly like theists.
Which is to be expected because both are umbrella terms.
As with everything, in my opinion, naunce counts if you want to be as accurate as possible.

In fact, and watch me get jumped for this.. :p
There are a number of atheists who find those following the trend of quoting Dawkins and etc *termed by some as "New Atheists"* an embaressment that is more alike to what they say they hate then otherwise.


edit on 1-6-2014 by HarbingerOfShadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Exactly.
And on a side note, your blinking avatar was messing with me for a minute.
hEh.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I really enjoyed this thread and found it fascinating. I find your approach to this subject refreshing, and you have an intellectual honesty about your posts that is sorely lacking here. It's also somewhat comical to me that you are an atheist, debating atheism with an agnostic, and the latter is winning the star count with a fallacious argument based on semantics alone.

It seems like a lot of people these days don't even understand their own beliefs, and base them purely on social memes that are pop culture flavors of the day. For instance I've seen a self avowed atheist (and anti-theist) who claims God doesn't exist, yet believes in reincarnation, an afterlife, the soul, etc. This particular person has latched onto the atheist meme and identified with it based solely on her personal hatred of Christianity, and has not bothered to further clarify her philosophical positions, or learn about which one it is that she actually espouses. For the record, she is a personal acquaintance, and not a member of this site (in case anyone here thought I was being intentionally passive aggressive
)

Anyways, I appreciate the points you are trying to drive home here. The debate between atheists and theists is often an ugly one, with logical fallacies being thrown around by both sides. The material you quoted in your OP is excellent, and should be required reading material for anyone who wants to step into the arena of debate on the subject.
edit on 1-6-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: undo

Supernatural is, in my opinion, a silly word.
Everything that happens, happens in nature whether we believe it or not.


perhaps you missed the point of my post. i know it's rather rambling and long-winded, but it's a serious post and a serious attempt to define the problem at its most basic level, that you are discussing.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: windword
Hello windword,
Haven't seen you in a while.
If you take the first half of my post, that you did not comment on, and apply the context to the rest of the post, it should be easier to understand.
Thanks
Quad.



That's a cop out. I have read your entire post, again and my questions still stand.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

i like your post.
i think one of the problems is that we are not all talking the same language. it's impossible to discuss something seriously, if the terminology used is misunderstood by either or both sides.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

*sighs*
Perhaps you missed mine in your eagerness for validation?
I'm sorry but your expectation that I'm going to take you as seriously as you take yourself is in vain.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

you had stipulated, originally, that one of the issues was that people don't even attempt to hear each other before they are already stating absolutes, such as "supernatural" is this thing or that thing. i think discussing the natural as if it had no super states, is the same thing. we don't completely understand the terminology, so we really have no way of knowing how to criticize it effectively. we can say we don't believe the supernatural exists because we haven't seen god, or we could say we don't believe the super-natural exists because we haven't seen technology advanced beyond what we are allowed to know or made aware, exists. there has to be a common language used for the subject in order for the subject to actually retain any effective criticism
edit on 1-6-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Myth: Atheism is Incompatible with Belief in Souls or Spirits

This is pretty interesting reading. To me, it seems that the existence of energy and the soul beyond the corporeal may very well be physically possible without the explanation that it needs god for the assist.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

And I think you're over analyzing a silly word that really should be removed from discourse anyway.
Thus my comment.

Please please please please stop breathing things into my words and then telling me what I supposedly said.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
This is simple.



be·lief


/biˈlēf/


noun

noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs



1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
•something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion More
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"
•a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo
"traditional beliefs"

2.trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence




See I don't believe in fiery's, leprechauns, purple flying elephants, or unicorns orbiting Saturn. The same for deities.

That isn't a belief that is the lack of belief.

Just to be clear though if evidence were to be presented supporting the existence of those things I could easily change my position from non belief to belief but so far such evidence is lacking for all those subjects equally.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

if you feel the debate is a matter of absolute knowledge over things that you claim can't have absolute knowledge in the first place, then we are saying the same thing. there's no invisible line that can be moved willy nilly around to suit you when we're talking about absolutes being inapplicable, because it would just be another absolute position. either it is or it isn't, is what you're trying to avoid. if not then what is the point of your last 2 threads?
edit on 1-6-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Myth: Atheism is Incompatible with Belief in Souls or Spirits

This is pretty interesting reading. To me, it seems that the existence of energy and the soul beyond the corporeal may very well be physically possible without the explanation that it needs god for the assist.


There are some deep philosophical problems that arise with that suggestion, but I won't get into them here so as not to derail Harbinger's thread. I am aware that some self-professed atheists claim their beliefs are compatible with the idea of a soul


It should be noted that I don't pigeonhole all atheists into the same category, however. Some atheists are very bright, respectful people that understand their positions clearly and are willing to have an honest debate. I think it's more the fringe anti-theist movement which is so reactionary, that I find lacking in critical thinking.
edit on 1-6-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join